- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Warren Teal v. State of Georgia
Summary of Opinion: Warren Teal v. State of Georgia, No. 77-790 (Apr. 24, 1978)
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States arose from proceedings in Georgia involving seized devices that were alleged to be "useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." The opinion before this Court records that a police officer testified he had observed, while viewing adult movies, devices used to stimulate human genitals and had seen a catalog marketing such devices. The trial judge refused to admit the catalog into evidence because it had "no relation to the constructive scienter issue." The Supreme Court's disposition in this entry was to dismiss the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Several Justices dissented, arguing the case presented constitutional issues identical to those in Sewell v. Georgia and urging further consideration of scienter and void-for-vagueness issues.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the scienter requirement saves Ga.Code ยง 26-2101(c) from void-for-vagueness challenges.
- Whether Ga.Code ยง 26-2101(c) is unconstitutionally vague (the "void-for-vagueness" issue).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982, 98 S. Ct. 1635, 56 L. Ed. 2d 76 | Referenced as presenting constitutional questions identical to those here; specifically the scienter and void-for-vagueness issues as discussed in Justice Brennan's dissent in Sewell. | Used by dissenting Justices in this case to argue that the Court should set the case for argument on the scienter and vagueness questions; the footnote explains that the record here, like Sewell, shows the scienter requirement does not save Ga.Code ยง 26-2101(c) from vagueness. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The opinion as handed down by the Court is brief: the appeal was dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." No extended majority opinion or analysis is contained in the text provided.
The dissenting opinions (Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, and Justice Stewart separately) explained their view that the case raises the same constitutional concerns addressed in Sewell v. Georgia and that the case should be set for argument (or reversed) on the scienter and vagueness issues. A footnote appended to the dissent elaborates on the factual record and the dissenters' analytic point: the scienter requirement, on the record in this case, does not save Ga.Code ยง 26-2101(c) from vagueness. The footnote notes that the police testimony identified certain devices from adult movies and a catalog, but there was no showing the appellant had seen those movies or the catalog; the catalog was excluded at trial as unrelated to constructive scienter. Thus, the determination that the seized items were primarily useful for genital stimulation rested on inferences drawn from the devices' shapes and on the arresting officers' conjectures.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION
Direct effect: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and did not reach the merits of the constitutional claims in the majority disposition. The dissenting Justices would have either granted further consideration or reversed the Georgia Court of Appeals on the scienter and vagueness issues.
No broader precedential holding on the merits is set forth in this entry; the Court's dismissal leaves the substantive constitutional questions unresolved by a majority opinion in this case.
This case is in all relevant respects identical to Sewell v. Georgia, ante. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case, I would reverse the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals, or, alternatively, note probable jurisdiction and hear argument on the scienter issue.
A review of the record in this case shows that, as in Sewell v. Georgia, ante, at 982, 98 S.Ct. at 1636 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), the scienter requirement does not save Ga.Code ยง 26-2101(c) from vagueness. Although a police officer testified here that, in the course of viewing adult movies, he had seen some of the devices used to stimulate human genitals and, in addition, that he had seen a catalog which marketed the devices for such a use, there was no showing that appellant had seen or should have seen the indicated movies nor that appellant was familiar with any such catalog. Indeed, the trial judge refused to admit the catalog into evidence because it had no relation to the constructive scienter issue. Thus the conclusion that the seized devices were "useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs," here as in Sewell, was reached solely from an inference to be drawn from the shape of the devices and the arresting officers' guesses and assumptions.
Alert